Self-determination is one of the most misunderstood, if not misused, terms in international politics.
In this video, I'm going to look at the meaning of self-determination
and explain why it doesn't mean that every group that wants independence should have it.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to Independent Thinking -
a channel dedicated to international relations, independence and the origins of countries.
Self-determination has emerged as one of the most powerful concepts in modern international politics.
Around the world, people vying for independence will cite a right of self-determination as the basis
for their claim to be allowed to have their own independent states.
Indeed, there are many people who believe that merely mentioning the words 'self-determination' is enough
to end any discussion on whether our territory should be allowed to break free.
However, self-determination is also one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern international affairs.
In truth, while it's correct to claim that peoples have a right to self-determination,
this doesn't actually mean that they have a right to an independent states.
Except in certain specific circumstances,
self-determination actually means remaining within existing borders.
To understand why, it's important to take a brief look at the history of self-determination.
Although the concept of self-determination emerged in the 19th century, it really came to the fore
of modern international relations following the end of the First World War.
The idea that people should have a right to decide their own future and live within their own territorial units was
championed by the US President Woodrow Wilson.
In his famous 14 points, he emphasized the need for different nationalities to be able to live within their own
borders or else be permitted 'autonomous development'.
Speaking to Congress in February 1918, he stated:
"Peoples are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to another by an international conference
or an understanding between rivals and antagonists.
National aspirations must be respected.
Peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.
"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase.
It is an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their own peril."
However, while the principle of self-determination was admirable, it proved hard to put it into practice.
There was several major problems.
For a start, there was the problem of applicability.
What groups should be allowed to form their own states?
Was there a minimum number of people required?
What about groups within groups?
How far down should it go? And who should decide where to draw the line?
Secondly, there was the problem of implementation.
The idea of giving people's their own states could work in cases where specific communities lived as a
homogenous groups within defined boundaries.
However, the real world is not that simple.
In many cases, a territory could contain many different groups.
How would statehood be decided in these cases?
For these reasons, the Wilsonian concept of self-determination, while very powerful as an idea,
was never as practical as it may have seemed.
Even to this day, these two questions of applicability and implementation often pose profound problems
when we think about secession and independence movements.
The next phase in the story comes with the end of the Second World War, in 1945.
The principle of self-determination was enshrined in the Charter of the newly founded United Nations.
Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 2 states that the purpose of the United Nations is:
"to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples."
However, balanced against this, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4 also stated that:
"all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent
with the purposes of the United Nations."
This created an apparent contradiction.
How could people have the right of self-determination and yet countries have a right
to have their borders respected.
To square the circle, the idea of self-determination was further refined in the decade and a half that followed.
In 1960, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1514:
'The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples'.
Article 1 stated: "the subjection of people to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes
a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment
to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.
Following on from this, Article 2 noted that:
"All peoples have the right to self-determination;
By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.
However, balanced against this, Article 6 of the resolution stated that:
Any attempt aimed the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country
is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
In effect, two distinct forms of self-determination now emerged.
One of these leads to independence.
The other to self-rule within states.
The form that leads to independence is usually known as External Self-Determination.
However, this is understood to apply only to cases of alien subjugation - specifically this is understood
to mean cases of colonialism or territories under foreign military occupation.
Importantly, colonialism in this context was understood to refer to overseas holdings
- what has sometimes been called "saltwater colonialism".
It doesn't apply to territories within the state,
however much any particular community may feel that is subject to a form of imperialism.
Moreover, the concept of external self-determination is applied on a one-off basis.
This is the moment of independence, when a new state is created.
However, at that moment the right of external self-determination for peoples within that new state ends.
From that point on, they then become subject to the second form of self-determination.
This second form of self-determination is known as Internal Self-Determination.
This is the form of self-determination that has now come to be applied to
peoples living within established States.
Internal self-determination does not confer a right to independence.
Instead, it's understood as a right for people to be able to run their own affairs
with a greater or lesser degree of autonomy.
This can take any number of different forms,
ranging from language rights through to extensive self-government - perhaps even in federal setting.
Simply put, when we talk about self-determination we are therefore talking about two rather different ideas
put under the same broad heading.
Strictly speaking, the form of self-determination leading to independent statehood applies only
to cases of colonialism or military occupation.
In other cases, self-determination is now understood to mean a degree of autonomy within states.
Nevertheless, it's this widespread confusion between these two very different forms of self-determination that
explains why so many people incorrectly equate the idea of self-determination
with an automatic right to independence.
I hope you enjoyed this video.
If so, I have posted some other videos that you might find interesting and useful.
And don't forget to subscribe to get new videos every Friday.
And do let me know in the comments section you have any questions about this video,
or if there any other topics you'd like to see me cover.
Thanks so much for watching and see you again next time.
[MUSIC]